“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

First, I would like to thank Birther Report for their efforts to monitor the unconstitutional machinations of Obama, et al.

“For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.”

“C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law

The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.

Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.

In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4

The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.

D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution

The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.

The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.

E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented”

Romney was not my first choice at the beginning of this process. My first choice started out being either Bachmann or Cain, but it was not to be. After them, I would have preferred Perry, if he had done well in the debates. I would have preferred Gingrich perhaps, if he didn’t have all the baggage. I still like the things Gingrich says either way. I still like Santorum, but don’t know if he can win, and he doesn’t have the gravitas I’d like to see in a President, but he would be better than Obama. I don’t know why some in the elite think Christie is good. He is too liberal for me, but in the absence of someone better coming forward, I tend to agree that Romney has the best shot at winning. We have to beat Obama. That’s my focus. And I am willing to consider any candidate who can do that with the exception of Ron Paul. I just will not consider him, period. He is too far apart from my views on numerous issues. And until the voters start voting, the polls are our best measure of who might be able to win. So here’s another poll. Just my two cents.

If some of these states can keep OB off the ballot, that would be very exciting. This issue is not dead, even though, the MSM would like for it to be. People are paying attention. So thank you to everyone who is keeping the issue alive.

Tina………………….
Sounds as though you are now thinking like an American instead of a graduate LIBERAL. I congratulate you. Please do not take what I am saying offensively. I have my own personal convictions which I DO NOT IN ANY WAY try to RAM DOWN OTHER PEOPLES’ throats. However if you are confused about who in the GOP ,or elsewhere would be the best candidate, I suggest that you go to “newsmax.com” and click on the link there that will take you to Micheal Reagan and Newt Gingrich. You might want to watch the Micheal Reagan presentation. You do not HAVE TO do this, I only SUGGEST that you might want to look at the presentation. I would suggest that you have NOTHING to lose except about 15 minutes of your time. Have a great day!

While I do not yet support Gingrich, he appears to be the only Candidate who has had the necessary seasoning,of having been the HOUSE SPEAKER. However this in and of itself does not really qualify him to be the POTUS. There are a lot of other attributes which I personally look at. One of these is MATURITY OF CHARACTER. I see an articulate,and well educated individual,(who doesn’t need a teleprompter to say even a few words. He has the ability to think first then speak. When he speaks he is forthright,and to the point. He has demonstrated this attribute over a long period of time. I also see much more in Gingrich,which I think will be touched upon in the Caucases in Iowa,and New Hampshire as well.

The new film THRIVE is incredible! It explains the New World Order clearly, and offers many solutions. Please go to thrivemovement.com, and start engaging with the simple tools on their website. For starters, pull your $$ out of banks, and put it in local credit unions or small community banks. Turn off your TV, and get real news at rense.com and infowars.com.

oldsalt79 | December 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
While I do not yet support Gingrich, he appears to be the only Candidate who has had the necessary seasoning,of having been the HOUSE SPEAKER. However this in and of itself does not really qualify him to be the POTUS. There are a lot of other attributes which I personally look at. One of these is MATURITY OF CHARACTER. I see an articulate,and well educated individual,(who doesn’t need a teleprompter to say even a few words. He has the ability to think first then speak. When he speaks he is forthright,and to the point. He has demonstrated this attribute over a long period of time. I also see much more in Gingrich,which I think will be touched upon in the Caucases in Iowa,and New Hampshire as well.

__________________________
Totally agree. I have always liked Newt. If he wins the nomination, I would not hesitate to support him.

At present I am about 50% in his corner. But when I compare him with the others I see daylight from him,and darkness from all the others, except for Michelle Bachmann. I also see MATURITY OF CHARACTER in Gingrich. But he has to still prove to me that he can lead our country out of the Soetoro mess. Unfortunately I see Bachmann in the same league as Ron Paul. I do not believe that she has a prayer of a chance. Nor do I believe that Ron Paul has even one iota of chance.

To me Romney is like a school playground BULLY, who is soon going to learn what his bullying will beget him. He is like a UNION organiser who only knows how to BADMOUTH people. He thinks this will get him elected. He is WRONG. It will turn more and more people AGAINST him. Perry could not speak well publically and compounded this inability by getting his “TONGUE WRAPPED AROUND HIS EYETOOTH,and couldn’t SEE WHAT HE WAS SAYING far too many times. Santorum always seems to have a QUESTION MARK emblazoned upon his face. Ron Paul follows him a close second. Michelle Bachmann seems like a child shouting to the wind. Huntsman…….who is he? ETC,ETC,ETC. At least NEWT has a smile on his face most of the time. Probaly resultant of associating with the rest of the KIDS.

Tina………………..
I am heartend by the news that you are visiting Newsmax every day. I do to. But you must also realise that even some of what is said there also carries certain invisible meanings. You must ALWAYS DIGEST what you read ANYWHERE, and evaluate it in BROAD DAYLIGHT. I always try to temper what I read by applying any PAST pertinent,and facts stated by the SAME person,or persons. Often times they are 180 degrees away from their prior statements. Not good liars! Read,and above all else THINK! Use reason,and LOGIC. About 70% of the time you will be the WINNER of the TRUTH.

folks where in the constitution does it say about politcal parties? NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. thats the answer. we have been dupped by the us corporation disquised as a legit legal govt. thats the biggest lie. We the people unwillingly have been lied to and decieved for over 100 years and the game is still on. they fear losing power thats why they need false flag opps and use the media to divide the people and create outrageous laws to keep us distracted as much as possible google US Verus USA

Amazing to see all the “conservatives” easily co-opted to the struggle of having to find some kind of conservative values in proven liberal Repub candidates, as far as decision making has gone in their pasts. And yet, hardly anyone brings the truest, most consistent conservative, steadiest inner compass for moral, spiritual, ethical values into the arena….Santorum. (Bachman is close but gets her facts wrong very often) Why? Looks like people have fallen into the usual exterior judgement trap…how well can the likely choice spin compromise in order to get votes which so far it doesn’t appear that Santorum has even had to do. How is that any different from the liberal way of thinking? So, what is it…..not flashy enough? Not “exciting” enough for today’s needs? Frankly, if we are praying, as we should be, for God’s will to be done, and for someone to lead us who is consciously aware of God’s laws/natural laws to govern us above the other compromising of those laws then why aren’t conservatives still backing such actions rather than struggling to find something in all of the flipfloppers to help them “hope” that somehow they will “change” in the future. And as far as Paul is concerned, I think he’s being dishonest from the get go in even attempting the Republican ticket when he’s anything but and everyone knows it. He’s of a totally different species altogether. And even if the Repubs got the senate he would more than likely turn that success into a circus because he doesn’t like anything they stand for and would probably veto whatever comes to his desk, if….he stayed true to his objections. So he would just be unable to lead even the conservatives he’s already so vehemently disagreed with if they would finally become the majority.

I hope this case goes to the SCOTUS. No goofy bs issues involved.
1.Straight up Constituional question. Is b-ho an US/NBC or a British Subject by birth?
2.Do state election laws mean anything ?
Wouldn’t it be intersesting if the DOJ interceded on behalf of the D-Rat party because of Georgia’s past as a Confederate State !

“Obama likes running unopposed. He has won every political race by eliminating his opponents, one by one, leaving him unopposed in the general election. That’s what we are watching right now.”

“In 2008, the Clinton’s had so many skeletons rattling around in their closets that Obama was able to derail the greatest political war room ever known to modern politics by simply cutting a backroom power-sharing deal, making Hillary Secretary of State and opening the door for Bill on the international scene.”

1. Nothing of significance will happen in the courts or elsewhere concerning the Obama eligibility issue. Obama and his minions have covered his tracks too well, and the burden of proof is on everyone else to “prove” that what they are contending about the illegitimacy of Obama meets legal muster. Since all three branches of government are in cahoots with Obama, along with a shilling mainstream media which will never conduct hard-hidding, independent investigations of Obama, his secrets are pretty much locked away in iron-clad vaults and have the backing of the technical letter of the law, making him virtually untouchable. And everyone who continues to pursue the truth will continue to be labeled as flakes or, even worse, enemies of the state.
2. Obama will win reelection to a second term as president in a hard-fought battle against the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. This will give Obama four more years to make good on his promise to “fundamentally transform” America. Further, a liver-lillied US Supreme Court will bow before Obama and rule that the individual mandate of Obamacare is constitutional, thereby instantiating into law that the powers of the federal government to intrude into the lives of the people are virtually limitless. With the reelection of Obama and the Supreme Court caving in to Obama on healtcare, the United States will move even closer to a full-blown dictatorship, with Obama as supreme overload and ruler.
3. Economic woes in America will continue to deepen, futhering the expansion of the Obama welfare state and effectively redistributing income and wealth from those who are productive to those who are not, including persons residing here illegally. There will likely be an executive order by Obama during his second term to grant amnesty to millions of currently illegal aliens, thereby bringing these million more into the Democrat party and ensuring further victories in state and federal elections for Democratic candidates for at least the next decade. Republicans had one last chance to end the reign of terror of Obama, and they failed to do it in the 2012 election. They will have to wait another decade to oust the cancer of the Obama stain from the body politic.

In other words, the prospects, sadly, are dim. Keep up the good fight, though, for that is all that is left. Perhaps by some miracle these predictions will not come true. I hope for the sake of our country, I am wrong.

Tina | December 29, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
——————————————————-
Well I would love to have a Santorum type with a personality that excited people since that seems to be the way to attract those who know for nothin, but I’ll take his values which are rare these days, esp. in politicians and someone not ashamed to espouse them consistently over time is even rarer. Then again, isn’t that what conservatives are supposed to be all about….even if the guy or girl isn’t getting traction? Now that he is getting some attention, in comparison to those ready to mud wrestle to the end, they’ll call him on just those values….as being “singled minded” or something.

At least Steve King can see the danger in Paul’s “other worldliness”…esp. in foreign affair realities…and who he blames for the world’s conditions….America first…..sound familiar?

—————————————————-
Good article. Paul is the type of babysitter most kids would love to have since they had to tie up all the others in order to get away with everything they wanted to try. Paul’s attitude is “what could it hurt”!!

And the “highpoint of solar flare cycle will be in 2013″….FOX news expert today. Worried about potentials “down the line”…other than just effecting cellphones like the latest one today may eventually effect.

Observer and Tina, glad you liked the article. I also feel the same way about Santorum, who has had a steady conservative presence in past years in the Senate. He is just not “flashy” like some expect.

Gianni, I cannot disagree with your assessment of the future. I, like you, wish it weren’t so. I would like to “eat crow”. It would be a privilege to eat a plateful of crow considering the shape we are in.

Here is a thought that plagues me a great deal. Probably all of us agree that we are fast becoming a dictatorship – The fix is in, so they feel, and the people are in place. Pure evil has accomplished this and pure evil keeps the Usurper there. Dictators never plan to give up until THEY want to.

Therefore, we are dealing here and now with a situation never before faced by our country. Oh, we still have the ballot box, BUT that is fast becoming corrupted, as we know. We have a DOJ in complete sync with the Usurper. As you have said, the courts and Congress are complicit with keeping him protected. Only an evil power higher than any mortals could accomplish this in the USA. It has been coming on while good men slept.

This regime is in full swing and does not intend to give up. Now perhaps we understand how the people of Venezuela feel in trying to oust Chavez.
I do not mean to sound fatalistic, but realistically the future is grim; however, God is sovereign and He is mindful of what is happening. With His strength and wisdom we can prevail, but it won’t come without a price.
Query: Are we willing to pay it at any cost?

It seems that maybe this author should have done more research, or maybe linked the source of his asserton that Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals.

It is simply a misrepresentation of Paul’s views.

Paul opposes the death penalty in FEDERAL cases.

I could find NOTHING about Paul opposing the death penalty for violent criminals, only that Paul opposes the death penalty in FEDERAL cases, oh the piece I linked states Paul is opposed to both federal and state death penalty cases, but THAT part was attributed to an AID of Paul, and NOT in Paul’s own words.

And that was the FIRST one I googled, because I am a supporter of the death penalty.

So I can take the rest of this article and place it in the catagory of INDOCTRINATION, because it is simply NOT TRUE that Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals.

I see NO ONE can come up with an answer to my question on the other thread about what SHOULD we be doing about Iran getting a nuclear bomb?

And I notice Tina doesn’t respond to my arguments against the charges she throws at Paul.

I believe it is because when you use Paul’s own words against the accusations that he is this or that, there really is NO argument.

It would be GREAT to have an HONEST debate on the issues, but when you have the MISinformation put out by Tina, and the MISinformation linked by Cabby, I am going to be on the losing side every time.

But in REALITY, I am COMFORTABLE in my own mind, and all you have to do is the research like I have on Paul.

What REALLY gets me is the total INDOCTRINATION that Romney is “the man”.

The media and “others” simply vilify each candidate until they either are deemed a “kook” of ran out of the race.

Look what the media did to Palin, Cain, Trump, Bachman, Perry and now what they are doing to Paul.

Almost EVERY pundit from Morris, Hannity, Limbaugh, and now even Gingrich is coming out stating he couldn’t support Ron Paul.

I will state this again,

I believe that the ONLY reason these people are so opposed to Paul is because they don’t want to be EXPOSED.

The conspiracy runs MUCH deeper than this Obama eligibility issue. The conspiracy runs through EVERY Department of the Government, and it seems to me that the “powers that be” don’t want the TRUTH out there.

IB, I appreciate the way you respond to others here. You are civil and know how to express yourself in a meaningful way.

Now, when it comes to the article I posted about Paul, I never said that everything in it was to be agreed with. My point was that there were some important aspects to consider about Paul’s candidacy. Several others took it for what it was worth.

As far as researching all of Paul’s writings, I have heard all but one of the many debates, and he has said all that I need to hear – directly from his mouth. Also, since he ran in 2008, those utterances are also in my memory bank. Furthermore, I have received his mailings off and on for several decades and know quite a lot about his philosophies.

The truth is that I do NOT support Paul for president. You and some others do. We each are entitled to our own prerogative.

You say, “I see NO ONE can come up with an answer to my question on the other thread about what SHOULD we be doing about Iran getting a nuclear bomb?”

In answer to the above, I don’t see a viable answer coming from Paul on the above either, but I do not fault him for it; because that is a theoretical question that no one in their right mind can adequately answer NOW.

Where I do find criticism of Paul is his cavalier attitude that Iran getting the nuclear bomb is no different than all of the other nations with nukes. To me, that is the height of naivety and fully illustrates that Paul does not understand the nature of the jihadist threat the world faces. The constitutional mandate on the president is to defend the country from all enemies – foreign and domestic. Paul doesn’t seem to “get it”, sorry to say.

As far a Iran goes, it seems to me that ALL of the candidates are saying the same thing about Iran (well except for Newt whose answer to almost everything is “send in the special forces or CIA operatives for covert operations”, oh yeah and while we’re at it, why don’t we just shred up this little thing called the Constitution), and they are almost to a “T” in line with what Obama is doing.

Sanctions (which do wonders don’t they?, is there an example of when sanctions actually ACCOMPLISHED something?)

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

what else?

Oh yeah

MORE sanctions

At least Paul wants to actually TALK to them and make them understand that it isn’t in their best interest if the bomb is USED.

It’s like I analogised a couple weeks ago:

Say you are best friends with your neighbor.

Say your neighbor is having a dispute with someone down the block, and that person says he’s going to burn your best friend’s house down.

The Police should be notified, but they are helpless UNTIL the person down the street actually DOES something.

Maybe you see that person buying gasoline or matches.

What do you do?

In my opinion, the MOST you can do is make it known to the person down the street that if they burn your best friend’s house down, there will be severe consequences.

You can NOT go down the street and burn their house down first.

But really, I understand some people’s reluctance in voting for Ron Paul.

I don’t agree with it, and I certainly don’t think that the “isolationist”, “radical” or “out of touch” suggestions are warranted.

I posted a link on another blog where Paul and O’Reilly are debating, and the way O’Reilly comes across is so much MORE “out of touch” than ANYTHING I have heard from Paul.

O’Reilly said that if we pulled out of the region, Iran would have carte-blanch to do whatever it wanted, and it was proved when Iran started a War in Syria using Hamas.

Well, they did that WHEN WE WERE THERE. What’s the difference? We’re there and they do it, we leave and they do it, and as far as I’m concerned, ALL of them over in the middle east can fight amongst themselves as much as they feel necessary. Heck kill each other til your desire is quenched, BUT LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE. If you attack Israel, you are attacking us, and you will suffer SEVERE consequences.